Abstract
Purpose of Review
In this review, we aim to explore the optimal approach to patients presenting with eosinophilia, considering recent advances in diagnostic and therapeutic strategies. Specifically, we focus on the integration of novel therapies into clinical practice to improve patient outcomes.
Recent Findings
Advanced insights into the clinical and genetic features of eosinophilic disorders have prompted revisions in diagnostic criteria by the World Health Organization classification (WHO-HAEM5) and the International Consensus Classification (ICC). These changes reflect a growing understanding of disease pathogenesis and the development of targeted treatment options. The therapeutic landscape now encompasses a range of established and novel therapies. For reactive conditions, drugs targeting the eosinophilopoiesis, such as those aimed at interleukin-5 or its receptor, have demonstrated significant potential in decreasing blood eosinophil levels and minimizing disease flare-ups and relapse. These therapies have the potential to mitigate the side effects commonly associated with prolonged use of oral corticosteroids or immunosuppressants. Myeloid and lymphoid neoplasms with eosinophilia and tyrosine kinase (TK) gene fusions are managed by various TK inhibitors with variable efficacy.
Summary
Diagnosis and treatment rely on a multidisciplinary approach. By incorporating novel treatment options into clinical practice, physicians across different disciplines involved in the management of eosinophilic disorders can offer more personalized and effective care to patients. However, challenges remain in accurately diagnosing and risk-stratifying patients, as well as in navigating the complexities of treatment selection.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Eosinophilia and hypereosinophilia (HE) are defined as an absolute eosinophil count of ≥ 0.5 × 109/L and ≥ 1.5 × 109/L in peripheral blood (PB), with an arbitrarily distinction into mild (< 1.5 × 109/L), moderate (1.5–5 × 109/L), and severe (≥ 5 × 109/L) eosinophilia. The underlying etiology of eosinophilia ranges from benign reactive conditions to life-threatening neoplasms and its correct attribution is often challenging. After confirmation of HE, the diagnostic workup should progress in a stepwise manner, first by excluding the most frequent secondary/reactive causes (e.g., allergies, infections but also autoimmunopathies such as eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis [EGPA]), followed by evaluating potential primary/neoplastic causes (e.g., myeloid/lymphoid neoplasms with eosinophilia and tyrosine kinase gene fusions [MLN-TK], chronic eosinophilic leukemia [CEL], eosinophilia associated with other myeloid neoplasms), and ultimately by confirming or excluding the diagnosis of lymphocytic (L-HES) or idiopathic hypereosinophilic syndrome (iHES, Fig. 1).
Recent advances in our understanding of HE related clinical and genetic features have led to significant revisions in diagnostic criteria by the World Health Organization classification (WHO-HAEM5) and the International Consensus Classification (ICC), reflecting a growing appreciation of the complex (genetic) pathogenesis underlying different eosinophilic disorders [3, 4].
In this manuscript, we aim to provide a comprehensive overview of the expanding therapeutic landscape, encompassing both established treatment modalities and innovative therapeutic agents of which some are currently undergoing evaluation in clinical trials. Through a comprehensive examination of recent developments and emerging trends in the field, we try to offer insights into the management of eosinophilic disorders that will inform clinical decision-making and improve patient outcomes.
Secondary/reactive eosinophilia
Eosinophilia is predominantly of secondary/reactive origin with a multitude of different causes (Table 1). Globally, parasitic infections and drug reactions to medications are among the most common causes for eosinophilia. Furthermore, mild to moderate PB eosinophilia is associated with several autoimmune conditions. EGPA is classified as a small-vessel, anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV) [5, 6]. However, only approximately 30–47% of EGPA patients test positive for ANCA, predominantly showing anti-myeloperoxidase (MPO) ANCA positivity [7]. Recent studies have revealed that ANCA-positive and -negative EGPA are linked to distinct genetic polymorphisms, suggesting different underlying pathogenic mechanisms [8]. [9,10,11,12,13]. Patients with ANCA-positive EGPA are more likely to develop a vasculitic phenotype, whereas patients without ANCA are more predisposed to eosinophilic end organ damage. However, ANCA status alone is insufficient to predict the individual clinical presentation or guide treatment decisions. Oral corticosteroids are the standard of care [6]. In cases with end-organ involvement or life-threatening symptoms, corticosteroids are administered along with immunosuppressive drugs (e.g., cyclophosphamide, azathioprine or rituximab) [6]. Most recently, the MIRRA trial (NCT02020889) demonstrated that approximately half of the participants with relapsing or refractory EGPA who were treated with the anti-interleukin (IL)-5 monoclonal antibody mepolizumab had clinically relevant improvements in the rates of protocol-defined remission (28% vs. 3% for placebo) and relapse (annualized relapse rate 1.14 vs. 2.27 for placebo), and were able to reduce the dose of steroids (< 4.0 mg prednisolone per day, 44% vs. 7% for placebo) compared to placebo [14].
Neoplastic conditions, both hematologic (e.g., systemic mastocytosis, acute leukemias, myeloproliferative neoplasms, lymphoma) and non-hematologic (e.g., solid tumors), can also trigger eosinophilia.
Administered medications (e.g., corticosteroids) and transient medical conditions (e.g., bacterial infections) may temporarily lower the absolute eosinophil count, masking the real degree of eosinophilia. If secondary causes of eosinophilia have been excluded or are unlikely, and the cause of eosinophlia remains unclear, screening for a primary eosinophilic disorder is necessary, ideally before a potential end-organ damage occurs.
Myeloid/lymphoid neoplasms with eosinophilia and tyrosine kinase gene fusions (MLN-TK)
According to the 2022 WHO/ICC classification, the term “myeloid/lymphoid neoplasms with eosinophilia and rearrangement of PDGFRA, PDGFRB, or FGFR1, or with PCM1::JAK2” has been replaced with MLN-TK to specify the underlying molecular genetic changes and to include cases with ETV6::ABL1, FLT3 fusions, or other tyrosine kinase (TK) gene fusions [2, 4, 16]. Nearly 100 different TK fusion genes, involving at least six TK (PDGFRA, PDGFRB, FGFR1, JAK2, ABL1, FLT3), have been identified in distinct MLN with or without eosinophilia [17, 18]. A comprehensive overview of the most common fusion partners is provided in Table 2. Besides eosinophilia, patients often present with monocytosis and an elevated serum tryptase, particularly in cases with PDGFRA or PDGFRB fusion genes [18, 19]. Elevated vitamin B12 levels are a common, yet non-specific marker for myeloproliferative neoplasms in general.
The blast phase in the bone marrow (BM) or at extramedullary sites (extramedullary disease, EMD), which is often initially diagnoses as myeloid sarcoma or high-grade (T-/B-cell) lymphoma without knowledge of an underlying TK fusion gene, may be present at diagnosis (primary blast phase) or develops in due course (secondary blast phase) [21]. Patients should undergo imaging (e.g., computed tomography) to check for extramedullary manifestation. In a recently published register based study on 135 MLN-TK patients, primary or secondary blast phase manifested with similar frequency either in the BM or as EMD in 28% of patients, of which 61% were of myeloid and 39% of lymphoid origin [18]. Primary or secondary blast phase in the BM was equally prevalent (each 50%), whereas primary EMD was more common (83%) than secondary EMD (17%). A discordance between myeloid and lymphoid lineage involvement in BM and at extramedullary sites was regularly seen in 50% of patients. Patients with PDGFRA and PDGFRB fusion genes (16%) were less likely to exhibit primary blast phase compared to those with FGFR1, JAK2, and ETV6::ABL1 fusion genes (26%). Secondary blast phase was also only observed in 6% of patients with PDGFRA and PDGFRB fusion genes after a median of 87 months. In addition to eosinophilia, BM morphology in MLN-TK frequently displayed an increase of mast cells and fibrosis [22]. In cases with dense mast cell aggregates and/or an elevated serum tryptase, molecular studies with high sensitivity (e.g., digital PCR) should be conducted to rule out a KIT D816V mutation for systemic mastocytosis [22,23,24,25,26,27]. The detection of fusion genes may be challenging due to variable clinical presentation, cryptic fusions or unknown fusion partners. Therefore, integrating conventional molecular- and cytogenetic analysis, along with advanced sequencing technologies such as RNA sequencing or next-generation-sequencing (NGS), might be necessary.
Considering the risks of both irreversible end-organ damage associated with persistent HE and possible transformation into blast phase with poor prognosis, it is recommended to initiate treatment immediately irrespective of the clinical symptoms [28]. Potentially effective targeted treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) exist for all individual TK fusion genes. Imatinib has been proven to be highly effective in MLN with PDGFRA and PDGFRB fusion genes, with achievement of durable complete hematologic, cytogenetic (e.g., PDGFRB fusion genes) and molecular (e.g., FIP1L1::PDGFRA) remissions in more than 90% of patients. Patients are initially treated with a daily dose of 100–400 mg. Maintenance treatment with 100 mg three times per week is sufficient for complete molecular remissions [29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40]. Retrospective studies have examined the possibility of discontinuing imatinib once complete molecular remission of FIP1L1::PDGFRA is achieved [39, 40]. In one study involving 12 patients with the FIP1L1::PDGFRA fusion gene, the median time to relapse after stopping imatinib was 5.6 months, with approximately 30–40% of patients experiencing a treatment-free remission lasting longer than 3 years and a rapid second hematologic and molecular response to imatinib in those with a relapse [18]. While secondary resistance to imatinib is rare, it typically involves one of two specific mutations: PDGFRA T674I, which has shown in vitro response to ponatinib, or PDGFRA D842V, for which avapritinib, approved for gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST), holds promise [41,42,43].
In contrast, TK fusion genes with involvement of FGFR1, JAK2 or FLT3 are associated with a more aggressive phenotype and clinical course with variable sensitivity to TKI. RUNX1 mutations, reflecting clonal stem cell impairment, are identifiable in the majority of patients with FGFR1 fusion genes (70–80%) and typically correlate with a poorer prognosis [44]. The 1-year survival rate in FGFR fusion driven patients is approximately 40% [45]. Therefore, there is a high unmet need for effective treatment options. Pemigatinib, an oral inhibitor selective for FGFR1-3 given at an oral dose of 13.5 mg once daily, has been approved for adults with MLN-TK harboring FGFR1 fusion genes based on data from an ongoing phase 2, open-label, multicenter trial (NCT03011372) [46]. Complete remission rate was 65%; cytogenetic response rate was 77.4%. Among patients achieving complete remission, a significant reduction in FGFR1 fusion transcripts was observed, with 81% experiencing a > 2-log reduction and 48% a > 3-log reduction [47]. Although complete clinical and cytogenetic responses were also observed in blast phase, they were less frequent and less durable compared to chronic phase disease [46, 47]. A retinal pigment epithelial detachment (RPED) occurred in 26% of patients, with no instances of severe (grade 3–4) RPED observed. Before and during treatment, ophthalmological examinations are therefore recommended. Hyperphosphatemia was reported in 74% of patients, with severe (grade 3–4) hyperphosphatemia observed in 2.9% of cases. A low phosphate-diet and phosphate-lowering therapies should be initiated based on the severity. Overall, 80% of patients starting on the recommended dosage required dose reductions of pemigatinib due to adverse events. Depending on the severity of adverse events, initial dose reduction is recommended to 9 mg once daily, followed by subsequent reductions to 4.5 mg once daily, and 4.5 mg once daily for the first 14 days of each 21-day cycle. Pemigatinib may serve as a bridge to allogeneic stem cell transplantation (alloHCT) in these patients. In a retrospective study involving 22 patients with FGFR1 fusions who underwent alloHCT, the estimated 5-year survival rate was 74%, with progression-free survival at 63%. The rates of non-relapse mortality and relapse were 14% and 23%, respectively [48]. The potential of combining pemigatinib with chemotherapy in transplant-ineligible patients, particularly for aggressive phenotypes, warrants further investigation, as does the use of pemigatinib as maintenance therapy following alloHCT.
Futibatinib, an oral selective small molecule inhibitor of FGFR1-4, given at an oral dose of 20 mg once daily, has been assessed in a 55-year-old male, resulting in the first reported case of complete hematologic and cytogenetic remission in an FGFR1-driven myeloid neoplasm [49]. This has led to an ongoing, phase 2, open-label, multicenter trial for transplant-ineligible patients (NCT04189445) [50].
Six distinct fusion genes involving JAK2 are yet identified, with PCM1::JAK2 being the most common. Treatment with ruxolitinib (usually doses of 10 mg per day BID or higher) may lead to transient remission rates, but should primarily be seen as bridge to alloHCT in fit patients [51]. Although we currently lack data, fedratinib, momelotinib, or pacritinib could potentially demonstrate efficacy. ETV6::FLT3 constitutes about half of seven distinct FLT3 fusion genes. Partial and frequently transient effectiveness was observed with sorafenib, sunitinib, midostaurin, and gilteritinib. AlloHCT was documented in three patients, all of whom were in complete response at the time of reporting [52,53,54,55,56,57]. While ETV6::PDGFRB usually nicely responds to imatinib, fusions like ETV6::ABL1 and others often show lack of remission to imatinib but require nilotinib or ponatinib for achievement of remission [58]. Further treatment options are presented in Tables 2, 3.
Chronic eosinophilic leukemia
CEL is a heterogenous disorder that is characterized by persistent eosinophilia while not meeting criteria for other genetically defined entities (Table 4). Diagnostic criteria further mandate abnormal BM morphology (e.g., dysplastic megakaryocytes with or without dysplastic features in other lineages or increased blasts ≥ 5% in the BM and/or ≥ 2% in the PB) as well as demonstration of a clonal cytogenetic abnormality and/or somatic mutation(s) [2, 4, 59]. Additionally, the BM typically displays significant fibrosis associated with an eosinophilic infiltrate [59]. Most of the reported mutations have been identified in genes associated with DNA methylation and chromatin modification, including ASXL1, TET2, EZH2, and DNMT3A [59,60,61]. However, mutations have also been observed in other genes such as SRSF2, TP53, and SETBP1 [59, 60]. One recent study detected the STAT5B N642H mutation as a recurrent event (1.6%) in patients referred with a diagnosis of eosinophilia, including those who would have otherwise been diagnosed with iHES [62]. In a separate investigation conducted by the French referral center for hypereosinophilic syndromes (CEREO), 64 individuals with TK fusion-negative HE underwent screening via NGS using a customized panel comprising 149 genes to detect somatic mutations. Among these, 35 patients (54%) exhibited at least one mutation within the JAK-STAT pathway, encompassing mutations in STAT5B (n = 18; N642H, n = 13), JAK1 (indels in exon13, n = 5; V658F/L, n = 2), and JAK2 (V617F, n = 6; indels in exon 13, n = 2). Additionally, previously unreported somatic mutations were identified in JAK2, JAK1, STAT5B, and STAT5A, with three patients sharing the same STAT5A V707fs mutation [63]. Exclusion of systemic mastocytosis by high sensitivity molecular studies (e.g., digital PCR) is recommend. Due to the lack of specific treatment options and rapid transformation into secondary blast phase, prognosis of CEL is generally poor. In a case series of 10 patients reported by Wang et al., the median overall survival was only 22 months with 5 patients developing AML after a median of 20 months from diagnosis [64]. Consensus on the optimal frontline treatment for CEL remains elusive [21]. While corticosteroids, hydroxyurea, PEG-IFN-α, and imatinib have been employed to mitigate leukocytosis and HE, their effectiveness tends to be temporary. PEG-IFN-α has shown partial success in inducing hematologic and molecular/cytogenetic responses, along with ameliorating end-organ damage, also in patients resistant or refractory to corticosteroids and hydroxyurea [65,66,67]. Hematologic improvements from empiric imatinib usage, in the absence of a specific tyrosine kinase target, may primarily result from nonspecific myelosuppression. Hypomethylating agents and/or alloHCT are further treatment options.
Idiopathic hypereosinophilic syndrome
iHES is characterized by (i) persistent HE in PB (≥ 6 months or ≥ 2 weeks if end-organ damage necessitates immediate treatment), (ii) end-organ damage caused by eosinophilic infiltration and (iii) absence of a reactive, familial or neoplastic etiology, as well as exclusion of L-HES (Table 5) [4]. L-HES is a distinct subtype, characterized by aberrant clonal T-cell populations that produce eosinophil-promoting cytokines [17]. In contrast to CEL, the BM of patients with iHES appears normal with age-adjusted cellularity and regular eosinophils with bilobated nuclei [22, 59]. However, a subset of eosinophils may also display slight irregularities such as uneven cytoplasmic granulation and hypersegmentation [59]. As opposed to patients with MLN-TK, increased levels of serum tryptase are usually absent in iHES thus making it suitable as a rapid and cost-effective screening tool. The presence of genetic alterations should be ruled out by molecular studies (including PCR for the most frequent aberrations such as FIP1L1:PDGFRA, FISH analysis for other recurrent fusion genes and PCR for KIT D816V and JAK2 V617F). If negative, NGS with the caveat of CHIP mutations (e.g., DNMT3A, TET2 and ASXL1, usually present as single mutations with a low variant allele frequency) or RNA-sequencing might be applied in patients highly suspicious of clonal disease [2, 4, 59, 68].
The clinical presentation of iHES is heterogeneous and varies in the pattern and extent of single, multi-organ and potentially life-threatening organ damage. In cases with multi-organ involvement (e.g., lung, cardiac, gastrointestinal, cutaneous manifestations), the main differential diagnosis is EGPA. iHES or ANCA-negative EGPA can lead to cardiac involvement in up to 60% of affected patients, thus having a potential impact on morbidity and mortality [69,70,71,72]. Cardiac involvement often occurs early in the course of iHES or EGPA (predominantly in ANCA-negative EGPA patients) [9,10,11,12,13]. The onset of restrictive cardiomyopathy is associated with early death [73]. Clinical examination, electrocardiography, and cardiac biomarkers like N-terminal prohormone B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and troponin I provide important information. While conventional transthoracic echocardiography and endomyocardial biopsy have long been recognized as the standard diagnostic procedures, their sensitivity for early detection of myocardial infiltration/fibrosis is limited [71, 74,75,76]. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has emerged as a valuable alternative imaging modality, providing non-invasive assessment of both structural and functional changes. In a study involving 62 patients with iHES, abnormal findings of cardiac MRI were correlated with elevated cardiac biomarkers and the pattern of organ involvement, indicating a risk of life-threatening cardiac events. Over a median follow-up of 108 months, 24% of patients experienced cardiac events, with the majority showing abnormal cardiac MRI and elevated biomarkers [77]. Accurate diagnosis of iHES, with confirmed exclusion of clonal eosinophilia, usually indicates a less aggressive disease course, with mortality rates ranging from 10–15% according to historical cohorts [59, 78,79,80].
Systemic corticosteroids are pivotal in treating patients with iHES [81]. Their usage is also highly informative for the distinction between reactive and clonal eosinophilia as there is usually no sustained effect of steroids on eosinophil counts in clonal disease. However, despite their effectiveness in responsive patients, prolonged use of high doses of systemic corticosteroids is often limited by severe adverse effects and long-term consequences. Therefore, the treatment goal is to gradually taper corticosteroids to a dose < 7 mg (prednisolone equivalent) per day. In cases of aggressive disease progression affecting multiple organs, a high "Five-factor-score" or resistance to systemic corticosteroids, early initiation of additional immunomodulatory agents like cyclophosphamide is highly recommended following re-evaluation for eosinophil clonality.
In a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, the treatment of iHES patients with mepolizumab (300 mg subcutaneously every month for a total of 32 weeks) significantly reduced the occurrence of flares (defined as worsening of HES-related symptoms necessitating therapy escalation or ≥ 2 courses of blinded rescue oral corticosteroids) and fatigue [82]. The open-label extension study (300 mg subcutaneously every month for a total of 20 weeks) demonstrated a continued control of disease flares (annualized flare rate 0.14 vs. 0.37 for placebo), a mean reduced corticosteroid dose ≥ 50% in 28% of patients and stabilized reduced blood eosinophil counts [83]. The most frequently reported flare symptoms were constitutional (94% of flares), dermatological (82% of flares) and respiratory (72% of flares) [84]. Symptom improvement was seen across all symptom groups except for skin and was highest for breathing symptoms [85]. A post hoc analysis revealed that treatment of mepolizumab was effective (flare outcome, symptom burden) independently of baseline eosinophil counts (minimal eosinophil count 1 × 109/L) and IL-5 levels [86]. Furthermore, poorly controlled symptoms in patients with iHES could be alleviated irrespective of baseline therapy [87].
Benralizumab, a monoclonal antibody against the IL-5 receptor (IL5R) which is expressed by eosinophils, showed promising results in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial when administered in a series of three-monthly subcutaneous injections at a dose of 30 mg. Benralizumab met the primary end point with at least 50% absolute eosinophil count reduction at week 12 in 90% of patients (vs. 30% for placebo). Subsequent open-label phase findings showed clinical and hematologic responses in 89% of patients. Notably, 64% of patients were able to reduce background therapies including systemic corticosteroids [88]. Benralizumab is currently undergoing a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 24-week phase 3 study with an open-label extension (NCT04191304). Primary endpoint is the time to first HES worsening/flares. Benralizumab is approved as an add-on maintenance treatment in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma inadequately controlled despite high-dose inhaled corticosteroids plus long-acting β-agonists [89, 90].
Depemokimab is an anti-IL-5 monoclonal antibody that is currently studied in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 52-week phase 3 study (NCT05334368). It is administered subcutaneously every 26 weeks at a dose of 200 mg as a result from an encouraging phase 1 study in patients with asthma, where it showed an extended half-life, supporting less frequent dosing. [91]. As primary outcome, frequency of HES flares is measured. Consequently, the non-inferiority of switching participants who have benefitted from mepolizumab or benralizumab to depemokimab will explicitly be assessed in another ongoing clinical trial (NCT04718389).
Reslizumab, an anti-IL-5 monoclonal antibody, was investigated in four individuals with iHES [92, 93]. Patients were administered a single intravenous dose of 1 mg/kg. Following drug administration, two patients exhibited a favorable response with a decrease in PB eosinophils to normal levels within 48 h; eosinophil counts remained suppressed for up to 12 weeks post-treatment. The response was independent of IL-5 levels. In another study involving ten patients with EGPA, reslizumab (at a dose of 3 mg/kg) led to a significant reduction in daily oral corticosteroid usage [94]. On basis of two phase 3 trials, reslizumab was approved for add-on therapy in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma inadequately controlled despite high-dose inhaled corticosteroids plus another medicinal product for maintenance treatment (NCT01287039, NCT01285323) [95]. No clinical trial for evaluation in patients with iHES is currently listed for reslizumab. However, considering its intravenous administration based on body weight, as opposed to other anti-IL5(R) monoclonal antibodies, this drug may hold promise for patients with high BMI who have not responded to previous therapies.
Dexpramipexole, a synthetic aminobenzothiazole, was administered to 10 patients with iHES at a dose of 150 mg orally twice daily [96]. Results showed that 40% of patients experienced a reduction of ≥ 50% in their corticosteroid dose, while 30% exhibited a decline in PB eosinophils to < 0.01 × 109/L with a depletion of eosinophils in the BM. Currently, there is no ongoing clinical trial enrolling patients with iHES.
Lirentelimab, a monoclonal antibody targeting sialic acid-binding immunoglobulin-like lectin (Siglec)-8, has been studied in various conditions including allergic conjunctivitis, chronic spontaneous/inducible urticaria, eosinophilic gastritis/duodenitis and indolent systemic mastocytosis [97,98,99,100]. These studies have demonstrated significant reductions in eosinophils in both PB and gastrointestinal tissue. Consistent with these findings, patients with ISM treated with lirentelimab showed rapid and specific decreases in eosinophil counts within one day of treatment, which were sustained throughout the 30-day treatment period. Currently, there is no ongoing clinical trial enrolling patients with iHES.
Navigating future challenges and directions
Eosinophilic disorders encompass a spectrum of conditions ranging from reactive causes to clonal neoplasms. One pivotal diagnostic challenge lies in distinguishing between patients with iHES and ANCA-negative EGPA given the overlapping clinical, radiologic, and histologic features, and biomarker profile [101,102,103,104]. While the "5-Factor-Score" serves as a validated tool for predicting outcomes and guiding treatment approaches in EGPA, biomarkers predicting disease activity and prognosis remain largely elusive in iHES. The range (single vs. multiple organ involvement) and severity (constitutional versus cardiac symptoms) of possible organ manifestations complicates accurate assessment of overall disease activity as no specialized clinical, radiological and pathological assessment tools are currently defined. To date, primary endpoints in clinical settings frequently involve assessing the frequency of flares defined by worsening of HES-related symptoms necessitating therapy escalation, such as systemic corticosteroid administration. Evaluation based solely on blood eosinophil counts and tissue eosinophil infiltration is constrained, as symptoms and active disease complications may persist despite absence of eosinophilia, and validated thresholds for tissue eosinophilia remain lacking across most organ systems. Moreover, the absence of patient-reported outcome instruments validated for application in iHES limits the comprehensive assessment of health-related quality of life. With an expanding landscape of (approved) novel treatment options, further research regarding the optimal selection of initial therapy, potential factors contributing to treatment failure, and alternative therapeutic options for patients encountering incomplete response or disease progression is warranted.
With the advent and widespread application of NGS studies, individuals previously categorized as iHES may also undergo reclassification based on the mutational profile. However, expensive molecular analyses may be dispensable in clinically clear reactive cases (e.g., rapid remission on oral steroids) and a thorough interpretation of mutational alterations is warranted with the caveat of CHIP mutations as confounding factors [26]. Future priorities for patients with clonal eosinophilia will include the need for standard response criteria, the incorporation and harmonization of standard cytogenetic/FISH and molecular monitoring of fusion genes into clinical decision-making, refining dosing regimens, and exploring novel therapeutic modalities such as hypomethylating agents in CEL [21].
Conclusions
In summary, our manuscript offers a thorough exploration of the evolving therapeutic options for eosinophilic disorders, covering established treatments as well as novel agents under investigation in clinical trials in reactive, clonal and idiopathic eosinophilic disorders. While patients with PDGFRA and PDGFRB fusion genes, who are receiving imatinib treatment, generally have a favorable prognosis, the advent of FGFR1 inhibitors offers hope for individuals with clonal eosinophilia and FGFR1 fusion genes. New IL-5(R) antibodies mitigate morbidity and, consequently also mortality in cases of secondary and idiopathic eosinophilia. It is to emphasize that diagnosis and treatment of eosinophilic disorders rely on a multidisciplinary approach. Fostering collaborative research endeavors and interdisciplinary partnerships will help to gain new insights into the pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management of these complex disorders.
Data Availability
No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
References
Gotlib J. World Health Organization-defined eosinophilic disorders: 2017 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management. Am J Hematol. 2017;92(11):1243–59.
Wang SA, Orazi A, Gotlib J, Reiter A, Tzankov A, Hasserjian RP, et al. The international consensus classification of eosinophilic disorders and systemic mastocytosis. Am J Hematol. 2023;98(8):1286–306.
Khoury JD, Solary E, Abla O, Akkari Y, Alaggio R, Apperley JF, et al. The 5th edition of the World Health Organization Classification of Haematolymphoid Tumours: Myeloid and Histiocytic Dendritic Neoplasms. Leukemia. 2022;36:1703–19.
Arber DA, Orazi A, Hasserjian RP, Borowitz MJ, Calvo KR, Kvasnicka HM, et al. International Consensus Classification of Myeloid Neoplasms and Acute Leukemias: integrating morphologic, clinical, and genomic data. Blood. 2022;140(11):1200–28.
Grayson PC, Ponte C, Suppiah R, Robson JC, Craven A, Judge A, et al. 2022 American College of Rheumatology/European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology Classification Criteria for Eosinophilic Granulomatosis With Polyangiitis. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2022;74(3):386–92.
Emmi G, Bettiol A, Gelain E, Bajema IM, Berti A, Burns S, et al. Evidence-Based Guideline for the diagnosis and management of eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis. Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2023;19(6):378–93.
Trivioli G, Marquez A, Martorana D, Tesi M, Kronbichler A, Lyons PA, et al. Genetics of ANCA-associated vasculitis: role in pathogenesis, classification and management. Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2022;18(10):559–74.
Lyons PA, Peters JE, Alberici F, Liley J, Coulson RMR, Astle W, et al. Genome-wide association study of eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis reveals genomic loci stratified by ANCA status. Nat Commun. 2019;10(1):5120.
Sablé-Fourtassou R, Cohen P, Mahr A, Pagnoux C, Mouthon L, Jayne D, et al. Antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies and the Churg-Strauss syndrome. Ann Intern Med. 2005;143(9):632–8.
Sinico RA, Di Toma L, Maggiore U, Bottero P, Radice A, Tosoni C, et al. Prevalence and clinical significance of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies in Churg-Strauss syndrome. Arthritis Rheum. 2005;52(9):2926–35.
Sada KE, Amano K, Uehara R, Yamamura M, Arimura Y, Nakamura Y, et al. A nationwide survey on the epidemiology and clinical features of eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (Churg-Strauss) in Japan. Mod Rheumatol. 2014;24(4):640–4.
Comarmond C, Pagnoux C, Khellaf M, Cordier JF, Hamidou M, Viallard JF, et al. Eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (Churg-Strauss): clinical characteristics and long-term followup of the 383 patients enrolled in the French Vasculitis Study Group cohort. Arthritis Rheum. 2013;65(1):270–81.
Healy B, Bibby S, Steele R, Weatherall M, Nelson H, Beasley R. Antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibodies and myeloperoxidase autoantibodies in clinical expression of Churg-Strauss syndrome. The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology. 2013;131:571-6.e1-6.
Wechsler ME, Akuthota P, Jayne D, Khoury P, Klion A, Langford CA, et al. Mepolizumab or Placebo for Eosinophilic Granulomatosis with Polyangiitis. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(20):1921–32.
Larsen RL, Savage NM. How I investigate Eosinophilia. Int J Lab Hematol. 2019;41(2):153–61.
Arber DA, Orazi A, Hasserjian R, Thiele J, Borowitz MJ, Le Beau MM, et al. The 2016 revision to the World Health Organization classification of myeloid neoplasms and acute leukemia. Blood. 2016;127(20):2391–405.
Reiter A, Gotlib J. Myeloid neoplasms with eosinophilia. Blood. 2017;129(6):704–14.
Metzgeroth G, Steiner L, Naumann N, Lübke J, Kreil S, Fabarius A, et al. Myeloid/lymphoid neoplasms with eosinophilia and tyrosine kinase gene fusions: reevaluation of the defining characteristics in a registry-based cohort. Leukemia. 2023;37(9):1860–7.
Klion AD, Noel P, Akin C, Law MA, Gilliland DG, Cools J, et al. Elevated serum tryptase levels identify a subset of patients with a myeloproliferative variant of idiopathic hypereosinophilic syndrome associated with tissue fibrosis, poor prognosis, and imatinib responsiveness. Blood. 2003;101(12):4660–6.
Tzankov A, Reichard KK, Hasserjian RP, Arber DA, Orazi A, Wang SA. Updates on eosinophilic disorders. Virchows Arch. 2023;482(1):85–97.
Gotlib J. Available and emerging therapies for bona fide advanced systemic mastocytosis and primary eosinophilic neoplasms. Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program. 2022;2022(1):34–46.
Schwaab J, Jawhar M, Naumann N, Schmitt-Graeff A, Fabarius A, Horny HP, et al. Diagnostic challenges in the work up of hypereosinophilia: pitfalls in bone marrow core biopsy interpretation. Ann Hematol. 2016;95(4):557–62.
Naumann N, Lübke J, Baumann S, Schwaab J, Hoffmann O, Kreil S, et al. Adverse Prognostic Impact of the KIT D816V Transcriptional Activity in Advanced Systemic Mastocytosis. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22(5):2562.
Schwaab J, Cabral do OHN, Naumann N, Jawhar M, Weiß C, Metzgeroth G, et al. Importance of adequate diagnostic work-up for correct diagnosis of advanced systemic mastocytosis. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2020;8:3121–7.
Jawhar M, Schwaab J, Horny HP, Sotlar K, Naumann N, Fabarius A, et al. Impact of centralized evaluation of bone marrow histology in systemic mastocytosis. Eur J Clin Invest. 2016;46(5):392–7.
Schwaab J, Umbach R, Metzgeroth G, Naumann N, Jawhar M, Sotlar K, et al. KIT D816V and JAK2 V617F mutations are seen recurrently in hypereosinophilia of unknown significance. Am J Hematol. 2015;90(9):774–7.
Erben P, Schwaab J, Metzgeroth G, Horny HP, Jawhar M, Sotlar K, et al. The KIT D816V expressed allele burden for diagnosis and disease monitoring of systemic mastocytosis. Ann Hematol. 2014;93(1):81–8.
Gerds AT, Gotlib J, Bose P, Deininger MW, Dunbar A, Elshoury A, et al. Myeloid/Lymphoid Neoplasms with Eosinophilia and TK Fusion Genes, Version 3.2021, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2020;18:1248–69.
Klion AD, Robyn J, Akin C, Noel P, Brown M, Law M, et al. Molecular remission and reversal of myelofibrosis in response to imatinib mesylate treatment in patients with the myeloproliferative variant of hypereosinophilic syndrome. Blood. 2004;103(2):473–8.
Pardanani A, Ketterling RP, Li CY, Patnaik MM, Wolanskyj AP, Elliott MA, et al. FIP1L1-PDGFRA in eosinophilic disorders: prevalence in routine clinical practice, long-term experience with imatinib therapy, and a critical review of the literature. Leuk Res. 2006;30(8):965–70.
Jovanovic JV, Score J, Waghorn K, Cilloni D, Gottardi E, Metzgeroth G, et al. Low-dose imatinib mesylate leads to rapid induction of major molecular responses and achievement of complete molecular remission in FIP1L1-PDGFRA-positive chronic eosinophilic leukemia. Blood. 2007;109(11):4635–40.
Baccarani M, Cilloni D, Rondoni M, Ottaviani E, Messa F, Merante S, et al. The efficacy of imatinib mesylate in patients with FIP1L1-PDGFRalpha-positive hypereosinophilic syndrome. Results of a multicenter prospective study. Haematologica. 2007;92:1173–9.
Klion AD, Robyn J, Maric I, Fu W, Schmid L, Lemery S, et al. Relapse following discontinuation of imatinib mesylate therapy for FIP1L1/PDGFRA-positive chronic eosinophilic leukemia: implications for optimal dosing. Blood. 2007;110(10):3552–6.
David M, Cross NC, Burgstaller S, Chase A, Curtis C, Dang R, et al. Durable responses to imatinib in patients with PDGFRB fusion gene-positive and BCR-ABL-negative chronic myeloproliferative disorders. Blood. 2007;109(1):61–4.
Pardanani A, D’Souza A, Knudson RA, Hanson CA, Ketterling RP, Tefferi A. Long-term follow-up of FIP1L1-PDGFRA-mutated patients with eosinophilia: survival and clinical outcome. Leukemia. 2012;26(11):2439–41.
Cheah CY, Burbury K, Apperley JF, Huguet F, Pitini V, Gardembas M, et al. Patients with myeloid malignancies bearing PDGFRB fusion genes achieve durable long-term remissions with imatinib. Blood. 2014;123(23):3574–7.
Naumann N, Schwaab J, Metzgeroth G, Jawhar M, Haferlach C, Gohring G, et al. Fusion of PDGFRB to MPRIP, CPSF6, and GOLGB1 in three patients with eosinophilia-associated myeloproliferative neoplasms. Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 2015;54(12):762–70.
Jawhar M, Naumann N, Schwaab J, Baurmann H, Casper J, Dang TA, et al. Imatinib in myeloid/lymphoid neoplasms with eosinophilia and rearrangement of PDGFRB in chronic or blast phase. Ann Hematol. 2017;96(9):1463–70.
Rohmer J, Couteau-Chardon A, Trichereau J, Panel K, Gesquiere C, Ben Abdelali R, et al. Epidemiology, clinical picture and long-term outcomes of FIP1L1-PDGFRA-positive myeloid neoplasm with eosinophilia: Data from 151 patients. Am J Hematol. 2020;95(11):1314-23.
Metzgeroth G, Schwaab J, Naumann N, Jawhar M, Haferlach T, Fabarius A, et al. Treatment-free remission in FIP1L1-PDGFRA-positive myeloid/lymphoid neoplasms with eosinophilia after imatinib discontinuation. Blood Adv. 2020;4(3):440–3.
Metzgeroth G, Erben P, Martin H, Mousset S, Teichmann M, Walz C, et al. Limited clinical activity of nilotinib and sorafenib in FIP1L1-PDGFRA positive chronic eosinophilic leukemia with imatinib-resistant T674I mutation. Leukemia. 2012;26(1):162–4.
Jones RL, Serrano C, von Mehren M, George S, Heinrich MC, Kang YK, et al. Avapritinib in unresectable or metastatic PDGFRA D842V-mutant gastrointestinal stromal tumours: Long-term efficacy and safety data from the NAVIGATOR phase I trial. Eur J Cancer. 2021;145:132–42.
Heinrich MC, Jones RL, von Mehren M, Schöffski P, Serrano C, Kang YK, et al. Avapritinib in advanced PDGFRA D842V-mutant gastrointestinal stromal tumour (NAVIGATOR): a multicentre, open-label, phase 1 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2020;21(7):935–46.
Baer C, Muehlbacher V, Kern W, Haferlach C, Haferlach T. Molecular genetic characterization of myeloid/lymphoid neoplasms associated with eosinophilia and rearrangement of PDGFRA, PDGFRB, FGFR1 or PCM1-JAK2. Haematologica. 2018;103(8):e348–50.
Umino K, Fujiwara SI, Ikeda T, Toda Y, Ito S, Mashima K, et al. Clinical outcomes of myeloid/lymphoid neoplasms with fibroblast growth factor receptor-1 (FGFR1) rearrangement. Hematology (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 2018;23(8):470–7.
Gotlib J, Kiladjian J-J, Vannucchi AM, Rambaldi A, Reiter A, Shomali W, et al. A Phase 2 Study of Pemigatinib (FIGHT-203; INCB054828) in Patients with Myeloid/Lymphoid Neoplasms (MLNs) with Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptor 1 (FGFR1) Rearrangement (MLN FGFR1) [Abstract]. Blood. 2021;138:385.
Reiter A, Kiladjian J-J, Patel JM, Shomali W, Rambaldi A, Verstovsek S, et al. Deep and Durable Cytogenetic and Molecular Responses with Pemigatinib in Myeloid/Lymphoid Neoplasms with Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptor 1 Rearrangement: The Fight-203 Study [Abstract]. Blood. 2023.
Hernández-Boluda JC, Pereira A, Zinger N, Gras L, Martino R, Nikolousis E, et al. Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation in patients with myeloid/lymphoid neoplasm with FGFR1-rearrangement: a study of the Chronic Malignancies Working Party of EBMT. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2022;57(3):416–22.
Kasbekar M, Nardi V, Dal Cin P, Brunner AM, Burke M, Chen YB, et al. Targeted FGFR inhibition results in a durable remission in an FGFR1-driven myeloid neoplasm with eosinophilia. Blood Adv. 2020;4(13):3136–40.
Kiladjian J-J, Shitara K, Rosen LS, Rha SY, He A, Oh D-Y, et al. A Phase 2 Study of Futibatinib (TAS-120) in Patients with Myeloid or Lymphoid Neoplasms Harboring Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptor (FGFR) 1 Rearrangements. Blood. 2021;138:3656.
Kaplan HG, Jin R, Bifulco CB, Scanlan JM, Corwin DR. PCM1-JAK2 Fusion Tyrosine Kinase Gene-Related Neoplasia: A Systematic Review of the Clinical Literature. Oncologist. 2022;27(8):e661–70.
Jawhar M, Naumann N, Knut M, Score J, Ghazzawi M, Schneider B, et al. Cytogenetically cryptic ZMYM2-FLT3 and DIAPH1-PDGFRB gene fusions in myeloid neoplasms with eosinophilia. Leukemia. 2017;31(10):2271–3.
Tang G, Tam W, Short NJ, Bose P, Wu D, Hurwitz SN, et al. Myeloid/lymphoid neoplasms with FLT3 rearrangement. Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc. 2021;34(9):1673–85.
Walz C, Erben P, Ritter M, Bloor A, Metzgeroth G, Telford N, et al. Response of ETV6-FLT3-positive myeloid/lymphoid neoplasm with eosinophilia to inhibitors of FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3. Blood. 2011;118(8):2239–42.
Chao AK, Meyer JA, Lee AG, Hecht A, Tarver T, Van Ziffle J, et al. Fusion driven JMML: a novel CCDC88C-FLT3 fusion responsive to sorafenib identified by RNA sequencing. Leukemia. 2020;34(2):662–6.
Falchi L, Mehrotra M, Newberry KJ, Lyle LM, Lu G, Patel KP, et al. ETV6-FLT3 fusion gene-positive, eosinophilia-associated myeloproliferative neoplasm successfully treated with sorafenib and allogeneic stem cell transplant. Leukemia. 2014;28(10):2090–2.
Munthe-Kaas MC, Forthun RB, Brendehaug A, Eek AK, Høysæter T, Osnes LTN, et al. Partial Response to Sorafenib in a Child With a Myeloid/Lymphoid Neoplasm, Eosinophilia, and a ZMYM2-FLT3 Fusion. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2021;43(4):e508–11.
Schwaab J, Naumann N, Luebke J, Jawhar M, Somervaille TCP, Williams MS, et al. Response to tyrosine kinase inhibitors in myeloid neoplasms associated with PCM1-JAK2, BCR-JAK2 and ETV6-ABL1 fusion genes. Am J Hematol. 2020;95(7):824–33.
Wang SA, Hasserjian RP, Tam W, Tsai AG, Geyer JT, George TI, et al. Bone marrow morphology is a strong discriminator between chronic eosinophilic leukemia, not otherwise specified and reactive idiopathic hypereosinophilic syndrome. Haematologica. 2017;102(8):1352–60.
Morsia E, Reichard K, Pardanani A, Tefferi A, Gangat N. WHO defined chronic eosinophilic leukemia, not otherwise specified (CEL, NOS): A contemporary series from the Mayo Clinic. Am J Hematol. 2020;95(7):E172–4.
Wang SA, Tam W, Tsai AG, Arber DA, Hasserjian RP, Geyer JT, et al. Targeted next-generation sequencing identifies a subset of idiopathic hypereosinophilic syndrome with features similar to chronic eosinophilic leukemia, not otherwise specified. Mod Pathol. 2016;29(8):854–64.
Cross NCP, Hoade Y, Tapper WJ, Carreno-Tarragona G, Fanelli T, Jawhar M, et al. Recurrent activating STAT5B N642H mutation in myeloid neoplasms with eosinophilia. Leukemia. 2019;33(2):415–25.
Groh M, Fenwarth L, Labro M, Boudry A, Fournier E, Wemeau M, et al. Involvement of the JAK-STAT pathway in the molecular landscape of tyrosine kinase fusion-negative hypereosinophilic syndromes: A nationwide CEREO study. Am J Hematol. 2024.
Helbig G, Soja A, Bartkowska-Chrobok A, Kyrcz-Krzemien S. Chronic eosinophilic leukemia-not otherwise specified has a poor prognosis with unresponsiveness to conventional treatment and high risk of acute transformation. Am J Hematol. 2012;87(6):643–5.
Quiquandon I, Claisse JF, Capiod JC, Delobel J, Prin L. alpha-Interferon and hypereosinophilic syndrome with trisomy 8: karyotypic remission. Blood. 1995;85(8):2284–5.
Yamada O, Kitahara K, Imamura K, Ozasa H, Okada M, Mizoguchi H. Clinical and cytogenetic remission induced by interferon-alpha in a patient with chronic eosinophilic leukemia associated with a unique t(3;9;5) translocation. Am J Hematol. 1998;58(2):137–41.
Helbig G, Stella-Holowiecka B, Majewski M, Lewandowska M, Holowiecki J. Interferon α induces a good molecular response in a patient with chronic eosinophilic leukemia (CEL) carrying the JAK2V617F point mutation. Haematologica. 2007;92(11):e118–9.
Kelemen K, Saft L, Craig FE, Orazi A, Nakashima M, Wertheim GB, et al. Eosinophilia/Hypereosinophilia in the Setting of Reactive and Idiopathic Causes, Well-Defined Myeloid or Lymphoid Leukemias, or Germline Disorders. Am J Clin Pathol. 2021;155(2):179–210.
Anselmino M, Novara M, Bellone A, Minelli M. Cardiac involvement in hypereosinophilic syndrome. J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown). 2011;12(12):919–21.
Ogbogu PU, Bochner BS, Butterfield JH, Gleich GJ, Huss-Marp J, Kahn JE, et al. Hypereosinophilic syndrome: a multicenter, retrospective analysis of clinical characteristics and response to therapy. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2009;124(6):1319-25.e3.
Ogbogu PU, Rosing DR, Horne MK 3rd. Cardiovascular manifestations of hypereosinophilic syndromes. Immunol Allergy Clin North Am. 2007;27(3):457–75.
Cereda AF, Pedrotti P, De Capitani L, Giannattasio C, Roghi A. Comprehensive evaluation of cardiac involvement in eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA) with cardiac magnetic resonance. Eur J Intern Med. 2017;39:51–6.
Kleinfeldt T, Nienaber CA, Kische S, Akin I, Turan RG, Körber T, et al. Cardiac manifestation of the hypereosinophilic syndrome: new insights. Clin Res Cardiol. 2010;99(7):419–27.
Mankad R, Bonnichsen C, Mankad S. Hypereosinophilic syndrome: cardiac diagnosis and management. Heart. 2016;102(2):100–6.
Srichai MB, Junor C, Rodriguez LL, Stillman AE, Grimm RA, Lieber ML, et al. Clinical, imaging, and pathological characteristics of left ventricular thrombus: a comparison of contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging, transthoracic echocardiography, and transesophageal echocardiography with surgical or pathological validation. Am Heart J. 2006;152(1):75–84.
Dennert RM, van Paassen P, Schalla S, Kuznetsova T, Alzand BS, Staessen JA, et al. Cardiac involvement in Churg-Strauss syndrome. Arthritis Rheum. 2010;62(2):627–34.
Lübke J, Hohneck A, Leipe J, Naumann N, Fabarius A, Hofmann W, et al. Diagnosis and Outcome of Patients with Idiopathic Hypereosinophilic Syndrome and Cardiac Involvement. ASH. 2023.
Pardanani A, Lasho T, Wassie E, Finke C, Zblewski D, Hanson CA, et al. Predictors of survival in WHO-defined hypereosinophilic syndrome and idiopathic hypereosinophilia and the role of next-generation sequencing. Leukemia. 2016;30(9):1924–6.
Podjasek JC, Butterfield JH. Mortality in hypereosinophilic syndrome: 19 years of experience at Mayo Clinic with a review of the literature. Leuk Res. 2013;37(4):392–5.
Xue J, Jiang J, Liu Y. The Neutrophil/Lymphocyte Ratio is an Independent Predictor of All-Cause Mortality in Patients with Idiopathic Hypereosinophilic Syndrome. J Inflamm Res. 2022;15:1899–906.
Barnes PJ. How corticosteroids control inflammation: Quintiles Prize Lecture 2005. Br J Pharmacol. 2006;148(3):245–54.
Roufosse F, Kahn JE, Rothenberg ME, Wardlaw AJ, Klion AD, Kirby SY, et al. Efficacy and safety of mepolizumab in hypereosinophilic syndrome: A phase III, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020;146(6):1397–405.
Gleich GJ, Roufosse F, Chupp G, Faguer S, Walz B, Reiter A, et al. Safety and Efficacy of Mepolizumab in Hypereosinophilic Syndrome: An Open-Label Extension Study. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2021;9(12):4431-40.e1.
Pane F, Lefevre G, Kwon N, Bentley JH, Yancey SW, Steinfeld J. Characterization of disease flares and impact of mepolizumab in patients with hypereosinophilic syndrome. Front Immunol. 2022;13: 935996.
Roufosse F, Butterfield J, Steinfeld J, Bentley JH, von Maltzahn R, Kwon N, et al. Mepolizumab therapy improves the most bothersome symptoms in patients with hypereosinophilic syndrome. Front Med. 2023;10:1035250.
Rothenberg ME, Roufosse F, Faguer S, Gleich GJ, Steinfeld J, Yancey SW, et al. Mepolizumab Reduces Hypereosinophilic Syndrome Flares Irrespective of Blood Eosinophil Count and Interleukin-5. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2022;10(9):2367-74.e3.
Reiter A, Lefevre G, Cid MC, Kwon N, Mavropolou E, Yancey SW, et al. Association Between Baseline Therapy and Flare Reduction in Mepolizumab-Treated Patients With Hypereosinophilic Syndrome. Front Immunol. 2022;13: 840974.
Kuang FL, Legrand F, Makiya M, Ware J, Wetzler L, Brown T, et al. Benralizumab for PDGFRA-Negative Hypereosinophilic Syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(14):1336–46.
Laviolette M, Gossage DL, Gauvreau G, Leigh R, Olivenstein R, Katial R, et al. Effects of benralizumab on airway eosinophils in asthmatic patients with sputum eosinophilia. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2013;132(5):1086-96.e5.
Busse WW, Katial R, Gossage D, Sari S, Wang B, Kolbeck R, et al. Safety profile, pharmacokinetics, and biologic activity of MEDI-563, an anti-IL-5 receptor alpha antibody, in a phase I study of subjects with mild asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2010;125(6):1237-44.e2.
Singh D, Fuhr R, Bird NP, Mole S, Hardes K, Man YL, et al. A Phase 1 study of the long-acting anti-IL-5 monoclonal antibody GSK3511294 in patients with asthma. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2022;88(2):702–12.
Klion AD, Law MA, Noel P, Kim YJ, Haverty TP, Nutman TB. Safety and efficacy of the monoclonal anti-interleukin-5 antibody SCH55700 in the treatment of patients with hypereosinophilic syndrome. Blood. 2004;103(8):2939–41.
Kim YJ, Prussin C, Martin B, Law MA, Haverty TP, Nutman TB, et al. Rebound eosinophilia after treatment of hypereosinophilic syndrome and eosinophilic gastroenteritis with monoclonal anti-IL-5 antibody SCH55700. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2004;114(6):1449–55.
Manka LA, Guntur VP, Denson JL, Dunn RM, Dollin YT, Strand MJ, et al. Efficacy and safety of reslizumab in the treatment of eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2021;126(6):696-701.e1.
Castro M, Zangrilli J, Wechsler ME, Bateman ED, Brusselle GG, Bardin P, et al. Reslizumab for inadequately controlled asthma with elevated blood eosinophil counts: results from two multicentre, parallel, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trials. Lancet Respir Med. 2015;3(5):355–66.
Panch SR, Bozik ME, Brown T, Makiya M, Prussin C, Archibald DG, et al. Dexpramipexole as an oral steroid-sparing agent in hypereosinophilic syndromes. Blood. 2018;132(5):501–9.
Altrichter S, Staubach P, Pasha M, Singh B, Chang AT, Bernstein JA, et al. An open-label, proof-of-concept study of lirentelimab for antihistamine-resistant chronic spontaneous and inducible urticaria. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2022;149(5):1683-90.e7.
Dellon ES, Peterson KA, Murray JA, Falk GW, Gonsalves N, Chehade M, et al. Anti-Siglec-8 Antibody for Eosinophilic Gastritis and Duodenitis. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(17):1624–34.
Anesi SD, Tauber J, Nguyen QD, Chang P, Berdy GJ, Lin CC, et al. Lirentelimab for severe and chronic forms of allergic conjunctivitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2022;150(3):631–9.
Siebenhaar F, Altrichter S, Bonnekoh H, Hawro T, Hawro M, Michaelis EG, et al. Safety and efficacy of lirentelimab in patients with refractory indolent systemic mastocytosis: a first-in-human clinical trial. Br J Dermatol. 2023;189(5):511–9.
Kuang FL, Khoury P, Weller PF, Wechsler ME, Klion AD. Biologics and Hypereosinophilic Syndromes: Knowledge Gaps and Controversies. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2023;11(9):2666–71.
Wechsler ME, Hellmich B, Cid MC, Jayne D, Tian X, Baylis L, et al. Unmet needs and evidence gaps in hypereosinophilic syndrome and eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2023;151(6):1415–28.
Leurs A, Chenivesse C, Lopez B, Gibier JB, Clément G, Groh M, et al. C-Reactive protein as a diagnostic tool in differential diagnosis of hypereosinophilic syndrome and antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-negative eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2019;7(4):1347-51.e3.
Khoury P, Akuthota P, Kwon N, Steinfeld J, Roufosse F. HES and EGPA: Two Sides of the Same Coin. Mayo Clin Proc. 2023;98(7):1054–70.
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to concept and design. All authors were involved in manuscript writing. All authors contributed to critical revision of the manuscript and for important intellectual content. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. All authors are accountable for all aspects of the work.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
JL and GM declare no competing interest. AR received consulting fees, honoraria and research funding from Abbvie, AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals, Blueprint Medicines Corporation, BMS, GlaxoSmithKline, Incyte and Novartis and was member on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees of Abbvie, AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals, Blueprint Medicines, BMS, GSK, Incyte and Novartis. JS received consulting fees from Blueprint Medicines, Astra Zeneca and GlaxoSmithKline, honoraria from Blueprint Medicines, GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis and research funding from GlaxoSmithKline, Blueprint Medicines and Cogent.
Competing interest
JL and GM declare no competing interest. AR received consulting fees, honoraria and research funding from Abbvie, AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals, Blueprint Medicines Corporation, BMS, GlaxoSmithKline, Incyte and Novartis and was member on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees of Abbvie, AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals, Blueprint Medicines, BMS, GSK, Incyte and Novartis. JS received consulting fees from Blueprint Medicines, Astra Zeneca and GlaxoSmithKline, honoraria from Blueprint Medicines, GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis and research funding from GlaxoSmithKline, Blueprint Medicines and Cogent.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Lübke, J., Metzgeroth, G., Reiter, A. et al. Approach to the patient with eosinophilia in the era of tyrosine kinase inhibitors and biologicals. Curr Hematol Malig Rep (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11899-024-00738-7
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11899-024-00738-7